Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Are Airport Screeners Doing Their Jobs?; Will Higher Taxes on Smoking Decrease Their Consumption?; FDNY Releases Smoking Calendar
Aired July 01, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
A shocking new report suggests some airport screeners aren't doing their jobs. The Transportation Department conducted some secret tests using fake guns, dynamite and bombs. Agents tried to slip the fakes by security screeners and, guess what? Twenty-five percent of the time the goods got by.
OK, we all want to know what's going on here, right? Absolutely and I want to hear from you on this as well. So go ahead and give me a call me at 1-800-310-4CNN or of course you can e-mail talkback@cnn.com. Now take a look at what else we have planned today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): You stand in long airport lines, submit to intrusive searches, even take off your shoes, but does any of it matter when screeners overlook guns, dynamite and knives? We'll have the shocking results of a new airport security test.
Also, Mayor Bloomberg and the golden leaf.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, NYC MAYOR: We all know that smoking kills, and increasing the cigarette tax saves lives.
NEVILLE: That new cigarette tax is expected to raise an additional $111 million a year, and New York smokers now pay more than $7 a pack. But is the hefty tariff about improving your health or improving the health of the treasury?
And you could say New York firefighters are smoking. Check out the men in uniform burning up a new calendar. You're going to meet them all except for the three who died responding to the World Trade Center attack.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
OK, we'll get to those topics in just a minute. But first, the U.S. military says an unknown number of civilians were killed in Afghanistan by an errant bomb deployed during a battle.
Joining us now from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan is CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson with the most up-to-date information -- Nic.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well Arthel, the Afghan defense ministry here, the chief of staff says that between 20 and 30 Afghans were killed in that bombing. He says perhaps more than 60 were injured. He describes what happens. He says that a U.S. aircraft was over flying Oruzgan Province, that is in the south Afghanistan near Kandahar. That aircraft, he said, went over an Afghan wedding. He said people at the wedding were firing in the air in celebration. He said the aircraft then dropped bombs. Some of those bombs hit the people at that wedding.
Now, military briefers here at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul say that there was a Special Operations unit in that area, that they were targeted by forces on the ground. They called in close air support. Close air support was a B-52 and AC-130 gunship. The B-52 did drop bombs. They say that four civilians were brought to their attention and that they held them. They took them away and gave them medical attention, but as for the exact number of casualties, that's unknown. They say there will be coalition forces and joint Afghan investigation. That should begin within the next 12 hours with daylight here on Tuesday -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Nic, have you had a chance to get reaction from the Afghan officials regarding all of this?
ROBERTSON: Well so far the only statement we have is from the Afghan chief -- defense ministry chief of staff, and his reaction very much a blunt statement to the facts as they believe they have them at this time. As for Afghan officials in Kandahar, which is the closest large city to this incident, no we don't have reaction from there yet. Certainly, from the military briefers here, they have said that the U.S. government extends its sympathy to all civilians involved in this and they are expecting a full and thorough investigation to begin very soon.
NEVILLE: So Nic, I just want to clarify something you did say at the top of your report that a traditional celebration there involves shooting a gun up into the air and that that's what happened?
ROBERTSON: Well, that is what happens at wedding celebrations here. A lot of people in Afghanistan, particularly in the rural communities, still have Kalashnikovs. However, there are some discrepancies in these two reports we've had, one from the Afghan government, one from the coalition forces here.
The coalition forces say that those close air support aircraft, the B-52 bomber and the AC-130 specter gunship were fired on by anti- aircraft gunfire. Now that tends not to be a traditional weapon fired at an Afghan wedding celebration. However, in rural communities, it's not uncommon to see an old aging, rusting anti-aircraft gun lying around. Still, there are many, many details about this incident that are not known and that's what coalition briefers say they hope will be made clear when this investigation gets under way. But there are discrepancies from what we hear at this time.
NEVILLE: And Nic Robertson, I'm sure you will get all the details as they become available. Thank you very much for that update.
And now we're going to look at what appears to be a major problem with airport screeners at airports across the country. I told you before that the Transportation Department conducted a test and managed to get such items as fake guns, dynamite and bombs past the screeners.
Now security appears to be especially lax in Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Jacksonville, Los Angeles and Sacramento. According to the tests, the cities with the best security include Miami, Newark, Fort Lauderdale, Honolulu and JFK Airport in New York. The test was conducted on screeners hired by private security companies. They are due to be replaced with federal workers by November.
And here to talk about it, Charlie Leblanc, the managing director at Airport Security International, a private firm that provides security training for airports, and Jim Dent, a former commercial pilot and president of Airline Employee Replacement Service in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. His company provides staffing for the airlines, and I'd like to welcome both of you gentlemen.
CHARLIE LEBLANC, AIRPORT SECURITY INT'L: Thank you very much.
NEVILLE: OK Charlie, I'm going to start with you. What seems to be the problem here, the people doing the screening or the equipment they are using?
LEBLANC: I think it's a little bit of both. I think it's a -- it's a training issue. It's not necessarily solely an equipment issue. TSA is moving very quickly in trying to federalize the security checkpoint personnel and in doing so, they are focusing on that, but you know they may be leaving behind the people that are doing the screening today.
NEVILLE: Yes, but maybe not. Jim Dent, jump in here for me because the way I understand it, I read that the actual people that the federal government will be hiring are many of the people who are in place right now.
JIM DENT, AIRLINE EMPLOYEE REPLACEMENT SERVICE: Well that's correct. It expedites the process, and I have to agree with Charlie, but one thing I've got to point out is that a lot of the technology that we would need to do a 100 percent screening, and also the training haven't been instituted or are not around at this time.
So really you're just replacing one system with a federally run system at this time. You're not really -- you haven't really improved it as of this moment and time.
NEVILLE: And what sort of technology are we talking about here?
DENT: Well, technology would be -- there is a system now that they're testing in Orlando that's voluntary right now, but it actually sees through things and picks up specific items. One thing is it sees through clothes, believe it or not.
You can actually walk through it and it makes you transparent as far as what you are wearing. So those sorts of type -- technology are in the process of being developed, but our current technology is not capable of detecting the minute details that we need to be 100 percent secure going in through airports or anyplace.
NEVILLE: Charlie let's talk about the people, again, for a moment, the people who are doing the screening. Of course, we can't paint everybody with the same brush. I understand that, but at the same time, I'm going to go ahead and say that I've traveled a lot actually in the last couple of weeks and I've got to tell you some people seem like they're just kind of there on the job, passing the luggage through.
You know one guy made me take off my hat for no apparent reason other than because he could. And it seems to me that that's sort of kind of juvenile attitude is not appropriate for such a major position.
LEBLANC: Well I think one of the big problems that the TSA has been facing so far, is morale of these contract employees, that know that if they don't fit the criteria or they haven't brought up to speed on the hiring process of whether they're going to be having jobs, you know, when November comes around or when their specific airports gets phased into the process...
NEVILLE: Right, but let me jump in though because I understand that whole idea about morale, but it seems to me if I were in that position and I realized that perhaps I might lose my job, it would make me step up to the plate and perform even better.
LEBLANC: Yes, but we're dealing with a minimum wage employee that doesn't think like a, you know, you and I would, you know, in this position especially since September 11, and all the focus that's been on airport security. I think some of these people are just trying to ride this out and see if they are going to be hired by the federal government if they meet the qualifications. And those that know that they won't are either, A, looking for a new job while they keep this job, or, B, are just going to kind of stay around until they probably are told to leave.
NEVILLE: OK now let me -- let me go ahead and highlight for you the training and benefits involved with this position of screening. They will -- screeners -- they will receive 44 hours of classroom training, which is really just under two days, 60 hours of on the job training, less than 3 days. OK, and then the salaries are, I'd say, that's a pretty good salary there.
We're talking about anywhere between $23,600 a year up to 35,400 a year, including federal health and life insurance, sick leave, paid vacation, and retirement benefits. That's not a position you take lightly. I mean those are great benefits and that pay is certainly not bad. So I don't understand this whole minimum wage mentality you're talking about.
LEBLANC: Well the minimum wage mentality are the contracting workers that are there today. I flew through Baltimore last week, which is one of the first federal airports and the make-up of the checkpoint was totally different. The professionalism was different. The personnel were different.
There was a lost staffing there, which doesn't usually exist in an airport. So I think what we're seeing is as we make this transition to the federal workers and they do have the benefits that you've outlined, we're going to see a definite increase in the professionalism and in hopefully the confidence level of these people working at the checkpoints.
NEVILLE: Jim, do you agree?
DENT: I don't necessarily agree with that Arthel. I think when you're dealing with people as employees, and if you take a look, say compared to the U.S. Post Office, although the post office has a significant amount of good employees, you're going to have certain people in any industry or in any organization that aren't 100 percent.
We have to -- we have to admit to ourselves that we cannot guarantee 100 percent of airport security through the screening process. All we can do is give our screeners technology and training that will limit the amount of possible intrusions that we could have at the airports.
You're never going to get to 100 percent be it federal, be it private. In my opinion the best thing the federal government could have done would be to create an oversight organization and leave it private. The private industry in this country...
NEVILLE: And what would the oversight organization do?
DENT: The oversight organization would then be responsible to over see the security, the privately contracted companies that would provide the services at the airports. At this point, all you're really doing is you're replacing a private organization employee with a federal organization employee.
You're not getting any benefit out of that at this point. You've got a bigger federal government, more bureaucracy, and everything else. The private industry in this country, I mean you can take a look at some of the largest security firms in this country are fabulous.
NEVILLE: Hang on for me...
(CROSSTALK)
DENT: ... better job.
NEVILLE: ... hang on for me. I have to take a break right now. I know Doug (ph) from Florida, you're standing by. I'll get to you when I come back.
And also up next, we're going to Los Angeles International where screeners failed to uncover fake guns and explosives 41 percent of the time.
TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. They call Los Angeles Airport, LAX, and maybe LAX, lax is how you could describe screeners who allowed fake guns, dynamite and bombs to get by 41 percent of the time. Los Angeles made the list of the country's five worst airports for screening.
CNN national correspondent Frank Buckley is at LAX and Frank, what are the travelers saying about all of this?
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well some of them are pretty concerned, those that we have spoken with who have heard the information. Some of them frankly, we are telling them, as they come up. In fact that's one of the folks here. This is from the Clay (ph) family. The Clay (ph) family is just on their way back from Australia, headed to Birmingham, Alabama.
I don't know if you've heard this report, but 41 percent of the agents who tried to get through X-ray screening here at LAX with fake explosives, fake guns, they were able to get through at an internal study. You're traveling with your family. Does that concern you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not really. I've seen random searches. I guess you could be scared, but it appears to be somewhat safer than it was before September 11.
BUCKLEY: Certainly the lines are longer when you go through X- ray, and it seems like they pay a great deal of attention. I can't tell you how many times I've had to take of my shoes and they pat you down. So you actually eel safer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do feel safer. I used to travel a lot in business, but when you take your family on a long vacation like this, although I guess going to Australia, also I felt safe. It's a very safe atmosphere there, flying the airlines. So you know, I guess for the most part I do feel safe.
BUCKLEY: OK, stick right there for a second. Debbie Shellenburg (ph) is also here, and Debbie (ph) you're going with your junior volleyball team, with your son and others, and you're going to the Junior Olympics. What about you? You heard about this report this morning. What do you think?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm really not overly concerned. I think that the airlines right now are the safest place to be. I actually feel safer in a airplane right now than I do anywhere else. So I'm really not concerned.
BUCKLEY: All right. Well thanks very much for your input guys. Enjoy your trips today. We appreciate it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
BUCKLEY: Just a couple of travelers and their views. Arthel, back to you. NEVILLE: Frank Buckley, thank you very much for the report. And we have our own reaction right here in the audience starting with Zack (ph). What do you say Zack (ph)?
ZACK: I think it's still proven that airlines are the safest way to travel, so I'd rather travel on an airline than in a car. You have more chance of getting in an accident in a car. So I think that's better.
ZACK: Thank you. OK, what about you Eric (ph)?
ERIC: Well it really worries me that such a large percent of the people who tried to get in with the fake guns and explosives and stuff were able to. I'd really like to see that cut down at least half or something.
NEVILLE: Yes, sounds like a good idea to me, too, as well. Doug (ph) in Florida, I promise I would get to you. Now you're up.
DOUG: Hi, Arthel. I'm an airline pilot for a major airline and I agree with your panelist that the screening is never going to be 100 percent. And I think this argument or these results of this test bode well for the argument that airline pilots should be armed to defend the airplane as a last line of defense.
The combat patrols that we're hearing about through the holiday weekend are to shoot down airliners that have been hijacked because al Qaeda doesn't have an air force. So security's never going to be 100 percent. I sympathize with you. I have to take my uniform, hat, undo my belt and my jacket just to get down to the airplane that I'm going to fly, that I'm in command of. The eye candy is working based on what I've heard from some of your viewers.
They think they're safe. It's not. Security -- there needs to be some real measures put in place. Miami International, which did very well on the results, six percent, there are hundreds of employees at Miami International that don't have to go through any screening at all and they wind up having access to airplanes. So...
NEVILLE: Wow, Doug (ph)...
DOUG: ... it's ridiculous.
NEVILLE: Doug (ph), thank you. Jim, you just heard Doug say that many of them don't go through any screening at all. I find that hard to believe, no screening.
DENT: Well and that's true Arthel. Doug (ph) is absolutely right. The average passenger, or the passenger is subjected to screening. The employees that work there or inside -- what you could call inside people can have access to certain areas of the airport and airplanes possibly without going through some screening depending on what they're doing.
You got to remember these terrorists are smart. They...
NEVILLE: Yes.
DENT: ... pulled off -- the 9/11 was an absolutely unbelievable feat of organization to do that. At this time we have taken security so far hard on the passenger screening, but there are some gaping holes in our systems that need to be addressed. It's a -- it's a real tough problem to kind of 100 percent lock down an airport and make it 100 percent safe...
NEVILLE: Yes, but can't we do a better job of making our airports safer?
DENT: Well we can always do a better job...
NEVILLE: ... a much better job.
DENT: That's exactly right. I mean you always can't, and that's why making the federal -- making the screeners federal employees leaves no accountability except to Congress. And you know, in the history we've always found that Congress is an after the fact incident. So you need somebody that can cause changes immediately without having to go through Congress.
And creating this screening, federal screener, just pulls it into the whole federal process, which makes it a lot slower and a lot more ineffective. But the problem at the airport is not necessarily screening. It's also some of the other holes and some of the other security lapses that you can -- you can enter.
NEVILLE: Let me get Susan (ph) to jump in here.
SUSAN: Security guards, I'd really like to see their job boosted up, more qualifications, more pay and longer searches. I mean I have to be at an airport three, four hours ahead of time, I'd rather do that and make sure that my family is safe when we get to the other end than we're somewhere in the middle an ocean.
NEVILLE: Right, because right now the requirements are to be -- you have to be a U.S. citizen, speak English proficiently, high school diploma, GED or equivalent of a year of airport screening experience, pass medical perceptions and coordination test and a security check. Is that enough for you?
SUSAN: No, not at all. I mean it needs to be a regulated government job and it needs to be monitored, not just, you know, I mean I used to work for the government, and I know it's very difficult to get fired from the government. So I'm not real sure that having these people working for the government is all that great.
NEVILLE: Thank you Susan (ph). Charlie, what are your thoughts on this?
LEBLANC: Well I think that the requirements that have been set forth and we can debate the federal, private issue all day long, unfortunately Congress has done what they've done, and TSA has to then take that law and put it into effect. I think the qualifications are much higher now than they were prior to September 11. I think it's a step in the right direction, but I agree with Jim. This is a very difficult problem -- it's a very difficult problem to solve overnight.
NEVILLE: And Charlie, does it make sense, though, when the TSA takes over to go ahead and pull from the pool of employees that are already in place?
LEBLANC: Well I think they're going to will pull some, but I haven't seen any statistics. We only have one airport right now that's changed over, and I don't know what the percentages were of how people that they hired from that. I know that they've had over 200,000 applications for the positions and many of the screeners, the contract screeners working today, do not meet all the qualifications. So they may be taking some from that pool, but they definitely won't just be changing their uniforms.
NEVILLE: OK, Charlie Leblanc and Jim Dent, thank you very much for joining us today here on TALKBACK LIVE.
LEBLANC: Thank you.
DENT: You're welcome.
NEVILLE: OK and up next, what could you do with 10 gorgeous New York firefighters? Well, with looks like that, you could start with a calendar, right? We'll check it out right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back everybody. What do you do with a bakers dozen of New York firefighters? Well you might hang them on your wall if you could get your hands on the new NYFD hero's calendar. Well us, we just bring them to the show so you can meet and greet and get the video version of one of the hottest calendars in the Big Apple.
So let's welcome all 10, including cover boy Danny Keane. Mr. August, Tom Caruso -- raise your hands guys when I -- Tom Caruso; Rich Eckerd (ph), Mr. September; and Mr. July, Captain Frank Ciociola.
All right, welcome to all of you, a big, big fat TALKBACK LIVE welcome to all of you.
TOM CARUSO, MR. AUGUST: Thank you.
NEVILLE: All right, Tom if you can hear me, I want to start with you. Did you guys have to audition to get into this calendar?
CARUSO: Yes we had to audition and we had to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) mid-town Manhattan this year and we all got together. It was probably a couple of hundred guys down there, and basically just get on a stage in front of two or 300 women, take a shirt off and have a good time with it. So it was a lot of fun.
NEVILLE: Well I'm glad to know you had a good time with it. I mean how could you not have a good time with it, right? Anybody else...
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Exactly.
NEVILLE: Frank, you're miked as well. How was your audition process?
FRANK CIOCIOLA, MR. JULY: My audition was very embarrassing and if one of the guys from the firehouse wasn't with me, I probably would have chickened out and ran home.
NEVILLE: Why? What did you have to do Frank?
CIOCIOLA: Well I had to do the same thing the other guys had to do. We had to come -- we had to hippity-hop down these spiral staircase, get on a stage and make a total fool of myself trying to dance and take my clothes off at the same time.
NEVILLE: Well apparently...
CIOCIOLA: Actually it was a lot of the fun.
NEVILLE: Yes apparently you did a good job.
CIOCIOLA: Yes better than I thought.
NEVILLE: All right let's see what Carrie (ph) from Maryland has to say to you guys.
CARRIE: I think you all look fantastic and I just want to say Mr. December, I'll be moving to New York next year, if you're available, and I just want to thank you all for your terrific job that you do, and thank you from the bottom of my heart.
NEVILLE: Very nice. Thank you very much. Now three of your colleagues who were killed in the World Trade Center attacks also appear in the calendar. Is this sort of a way to pay tribute to them?
CARRIE: Absolutely, Tom, Angel and Rob, I mean they were a part of this calendar and that was one of the best moments of their life, and their parents, they wanted to push the calendar and that's pretty much why we're going through with this, and hopefully the public will help us out.
NEVILLE: Well hopefully, because what, it's $10 -- $15 a calendar, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: $15 a calendar. You can get it at FDNY...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: ... zone.com.
NEVILLE: Say that again. Say the e-mail address again.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: FDNY.firezone.com...
(CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: That's the e-mail address.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: OK Danny, you're the cover boy, I'm going to call you, and your initial shot was taken in front of the World Trade Center and then they had to reshoot it and they shot you in front of the Empire State Building. Just wondering your thoughts on having to reshoot that cover for the reasons you had to.
DANNY KEANE, FIREFIGHTER: Well, it was a little bit of controversy on whether to have the twin towers behind is, and we felt that may be it would be better to just shoot it totally in a different area. And I support the FDNY on that.
NEVILLE: And when did you originally shoot this calendar?
KEANE: We shot it in July of last year, and now we just re-shot it. I shot my shot maybe about two months ago with Allen Bass (ph).
NEVILLE: And this calendar was supposedly -- was supposed to be released in November at first, right?
KEANE: Right, right, and the photo is inappropriate because of all the circumstances and you know with the three guys -- I mean they're representing the 343 guys that are gone, and hopefully we can raise money for them, and the fund, Fire Safety Education Fund that's there.
NEVILLE: And that's where the proceeds are all going to charity, correct?
KEANE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Exactly.
KEANE: Absolutely.
NEVILLE: Now, I have to take a break right now, but if you would do me big favor, and all of you hang right there for me. Can you do that for me?
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Sure.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: So that means none of you at home will go anywhere. I'll be back after the news. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking with New York firefighters turned calendar heroes, a bunch of heroes.
Stand up for me, Laura. As we are looking at these beautiful men and we're talking about the calendar, you can't forget the fact that these men are true heroes.
LAURA: They certainly are. It is nice to know that they have the opportunity to get themselves out there and everybody can appreciate them. And I am really excited for them. I think they should go for it.
NEVILLE: OK.
And I have Liz on the phone from New York, I think.
What do you have to say, Liz?
CALLER: As a single woman living in Manhattan -- if I may dare to speak for the other single women in Manhattan -- there isn't one of us that would not be thrilled to end up with one of you guys, with or without the calendar.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: Hey, who is that? Is that Danny in the front smiling really big right there?
Danny, is that you with the white necklace on?
KEANE: Yes.
NEVILLE: Yes, I see you grinning over there. Do you have a girlfriend? Just curious. Checking for Liz.
KEANE: No. No, I don't.
NEVILLE: OK. I was just checking.
All right, Kathy from Florida has something to say.
KATHY: I had a question earlier as to whether or not the funds were different from before as to what they are now, what the money was being raised for.
KEANE: Yes, actually, this fund is called the Fire Safety Education Fund. And it consists of an exhibit called the Fire Zone. It teaches the community about the dangers of fire and how to prevent fire. And you could come in here. It's right at Rockefeller Center right in Manhattan.
We also have certain things during the year: going to schools. We have a dog that goes around to schools. And it is a great thing to join. And, hopefully, everyone will support us.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: They also do a lot of community outreach, where they will go on into a community, like you said, with the schools. Or they'll -- two times a year, we hand out smoke detectors with batteries, since that's a big easy thing to fix that a lot of people seem to fall slack on.
They do a lot of the community outreach, as well has having this Fire Zone for people to come in and learn about the powers of fire and the ways that you can counteract, fire prevention. So, it is basically those twofold areas.
NEVILLE: OK.
I have Jill here, who would like to say something.
JILL: I think it is great that this calender is going to go out, because it pays tribute to the guys who died and also to the ones who are still alive and still fighting fires and doing great things with their lives.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Jill.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Exactly.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: That's the stance that we think people are going to overall take. We've been asked a lot today how we felt about that and the three people being in. And because their families are behind it, we feel that exactly that opinion is what most people are going to feel.
NEVILLE: Yaell (ph) from New Jersey.
YAELL: I just think it's wonderful that people still put out this calendar even after September 11, because not only does it pay tribute to the people who died and the people who are still working, but, for the people who think that it is inappropriate, the families approved anyway. So, I am just glad that the firefighters are given their chance to shine.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Thanks.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Thank you.
NEVILLE: If you could, Danny, or Tom, or even Frank -- you're all miked -- I would like to know just some of your thoughts, briefly, if you wouldn't mind, of your fallen colleagues.
CARUSO: My thoughts of Tom, Rob and Angel (ph) is just very brave men. And we changed the calendar's names to "The Calendar of Heroes." And I think I speak for all the guys here. It was changed to "The Calendar of Heroes" for those three guys, Angel, Rob and Tom, because those guys are truly all heroes.
NEVILLE: Anyone want to...
KEANE: They pretty much represent the 343 guys. They represent the other 340 guys. And, hopefully, this will be a blockbuster.
NEVILLE: I hope so.
KEANE: I just wanted to point out, on the Internet -- we might have said it wrong -- it is www.fdnyfirezone.com. OK? Again?
NEVILLE: Say that again for us.
KEANE: Www.fdnyfirezone.com.
NEVILLE: OK, that is where you get the calendar. You don't have to come to New York City to get it, right?
KEANE: No, not at all.
NEVILLE: But $15 a calendar.
KEANE: That's it.
NEVILLE: OK, let's...
KEANE: And, also, I want to point out, FDNY is accepting applications July 1 to September 30. You can download the application on the Internet at www.nyc.gov/FDNY. And it's from age 17, you could apply, up to age 29.
NEVILLE: How is the morale in the department?
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: It's doing great.
Everybody is really bound together. The fire department in general is pretty much a family. And that is why it has been so important to us, what the families of the three guys felt about the whole thing. But the morale, in general, the whole department, they really came together incredibly strong.
And not to mention that, but just the support that we have gotten from Americans everywhere, from people around the world, has been incredible. And that has helped lift our morale immensely as well.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: And anybody that knows our job knows that we live together like a family. And, even though our morale is high, we're still going through a phase of mourning that may take us some time. As most people know, we're still going to funerals for the fallen brothers. And I am sure we'll get through this and we'll do our rebuilding and we'll come back stronger than we ever were before.
KEANE: We just had Dennis Oberg's funeral. He's from Latter 105. We had that Friday in Brooklyn. So it's still going on.
NEVILLE: And thanks for sharing that, because I think some of us don't realize that it is still going on, the actual funeral services and that part of it.
Let's hear from Marisa now, who's from New York.
MARISA: I think, as far as whether we should still put out the calendar, because of the people, the fallen heroes and everything, I think that if they consciously made a decision that they wanted to be on the calendar and do it, we shouldn't take that away from them just because they died, because they are still heroes, even though they are no longer with us.
NEVILLE: That's right. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: Exactly.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
And I have Latisha on the phone.
Latisha, what do you have to say?
CALLER: Yes, I am calling from New York City. And I am not going to really comment about the calendar, but I just wanted to let these guys know that there are people that are very appreciative of all their heroic effort. And just hang in there. The hard work is paying off. And we are grateful for all your efforts. And God bless you all. Bye-bye.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Very well said. Thank you, Latisha.
UNIDENTIFIED FIREFIGHTER: That is one thing that we hope that people really know, is, like I had mentioned before, the way that people have come behind us to support us like that throughout this entire last year has been amazing. And I know, with my own personal experience, I'm sure...
NEVILLE: OK, well, that has been such a treat for us here on TALKBACK LIVE.
And it's time for a break. But if you want a hero calendar, you can order one at fdnyfirezone.org. And we want to thank those guys for joining us.
And up next: Will taxing cigarettes stop anyone from smoking? I want to hear from you after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back.
Is it the government's job to make sure your habits are healthy? New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, says raising cigarette taxes will save lives. It's also going to save the city budget by bringing in an added $111 million in revenue. With $1.50 tax per pack, New Yorkers now pay $7.50, which is double the national average. And here is what they are saying in the streets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's horrible. They are already too expensive. So, it's just -- basically, it's not even worth smoking anymore. The tax is killing us, the people who smoke. It's killing us anyway, the cigarettes. But...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They are trying to increase revenue for the city. And I could understand that. If I was a smoker, I probably would be upset. But since it doesn't really impact me financially, I am not upset about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, so here is the question: Does raising cigarette taxes save lives?
Here to talk about it are Bill Corr, executive vice president of Tobacco Free Kids, and Robert Levey, a senior fellow of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
And I want to welcome both of you, gentlemen.
And I will start with you, Bill. Is this a good idea?
BILL CORR, TOBACCO FREE KIDS: It's a very good idea, because we have a proven solution to reducing tobacco use in the United States.
We know it is the No. 1 cause of preventable death. We know that 90 percent of new smokers are 18 years or younger. We need to take proven steps to bring those smoking rates down and tobacco-use rates down. And we have ample studies from across the country. We have review by prestigious scientific and public health organizations. And we have reached a conclusion that raising the price of tobacco -- not just the tax, but the key is to raise the price of tobacco. And that will cause kids and adults to reduce the smoking. It will cause kids not to start and will cause adults to reduce the amount they smoke.
NEVILLE: OK, Bob, before I let you jump in, I want to hear from Deborah.
You are how old, 15?
DEBORAH: Yes.
NEVILLE: And what do you say about this?
DEBORAH: I feel that it's horrible that so many kids at this age smoke. And I feel that, if the cigarettes are so expensive, that many of them won't even start and we won't have such a problem.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
Bob Levey, that seems to be the idea here. ROBERT LEVEY, CATO INSTITUTE: Well, the idea is, if cigarettes are very expensive, people will stop smoking. But, in fact, what will happen, if cigarettes are very expensive, people will buy them elsewhere.
After all, there are 23 billion packs of cigarettes sold in the United States. When you start giving $5 a pack to government -- that's federal government, state government, city government, and the damages to cover the tobacco settlement agreement -- $5 a pack, that is $115 billion. That is about 15 times the size of Microsoft.
So, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that what we're going to end up with here is criminal gangs selling to underage smokers, an adulterated product free of all the quality restraints that a free marketplace would ordinarily afford.
NEVILLE: OK, let's get Justin in here.
JUSTIN: I have a question for you two. Since this tax is raised, do you think that the companies will increase or decrease the propaganda of the type of cigarettes?
CORR: Justin, I will answer that one, if I may.
We have a track record the last two years of the tobacco industry increasing their marketing and advertising costs over 40 percent. Much of that is directed and affects kids your age, 12 to 17, 18 years old. So, the tobacco industry's response, as measures are taken by state government and local government to reduce smoking, the tobacco industry's response is to push even harder to try to hook kids, because it is only kids who replace the adults who die from smoking.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
Let's get Rodney from Georgia.
RODNEY: I think that, basically, raising -- the tax law is basically making the people -- you're taking advantage of people who may have an addiction, opposed to people who have a habit. So, you are preying on people who really can't help but to smoke. So, I don't think it is fair.
NEVILLE: Do you smoke?
RODNEY: No, I don't smoke, but I wouldn't take advantage of a person who couldn't help themselves from smoking by raising the price of what they do. And, as he said, they can go across the bridge to New Jersey or somewhere else.
NEVILLE: Well, that is part of -- Mayor Bloomberg is trying to get New Jersey and neighboring states to go ahead and jump on this bandwagon, so you can prevent that.
Am I right, Bob Levey?
LEVEY: Well, I think Rodney has it exactly right. This is really a wealth transfer from poor smokers rich nonsmokers. What we really have here, is we have folks making less then $30,000 are going to be paying about 55 percent of this tax increase. Folks making more than $100,000 are going to paying 1 percent of this tax increase. Imagine if you smoked two packs a day, 730 packs a year, at a $5 to $6 increase in the price of cigarettes because of all of these taxes. That's about $4,000 transferred wealth from relatively poor people to relatively rich people.
And if you want to cure the kid problem, the way to do it is to vigorously enforce the laws that are on the books in all 50 states that say you cannot sell tobacco products to underage smokers.
NEVILLE: To minors. Absolutely.
Michelle from Pennsylvania.
MICHELLE: I'm a smoker. And I think, even if cigarettes do go up to $7 a pack, I still will smoke and I would not cut down. And I think it's ridiculous that I should be penalized for having an addiction to something. Why don't they raise the prices on alcohol instead of cigarettes?
NEVILLE: How many cigarettes do you smoke a day?
MICHELLE: About a half-a-pack.
NEVILLE: And do you mind if I ask your age?
MICHELLE: Twenty.
NEVILLE: You look younger.
But, you know, smoking is not good. And you are not going to keep that pretty skin for long with smoking. So, I say you kick the habit. It's not that easy, though, is it?
MICHELLE: No, it's not.
NEVILLE: How long have you been smoking?
MICHELLE: Since I've been in about sixth grade.
NEVILLE: And what made you smoke? That is a young -- how old were you in sixth grade?
MICHELLE: Eleven.
NEVILLE: Eleven years old and you were smoking? Why did you pick up the habit?
MICHELLE: I don't know. My dad smokes. So, it's hard when you have a parent that smokes because you are just around it all the time. And you have friends around you that smoke, their parents that smoke. It's not hard to get cigarettes when you are 11 years old. NEVILLE: So, but was it because your dad smoked? Or did you have friends who tried it they said, "Oh, it's real cool," or you saw the ads to try it that enticed you to try it?
MICHELLE: You know, I had friends that had older brothers and sisters that smoked. And we would just get cigarettes from them. It wasn't difficult.
NEVILLE: Do you regret the day you picked up your first cigarette?
MICHELLE: I don't know. Probably, yes.
NEVILLE: Yes. But, you see...
CORR: Arthel.
NEVILLE: Yes, go ahead.
CORR: Let me add that, when state and local governments raise the price of cigarettes through excise taxes, they also have an obligation to provide prevention and cessation services, particularly cessation treatment services to both kids and adults to help them stop.
We know from surveys that 70 percent of smokers say they want to stop, but very fewer are able to, because it is an addiction. And when Rodney spoke earlier, I agree with him that, when you raise the price on someone who is addicted, you have an obligation to help them. And I think the most important step we need to take, in addition to raising the price, to deter kids from starting, is to provide the cessation treatment services that adults need to stop.
LEVEY: Arthel, what we also know from surveys is 5 percent of the money that is taken in is being spent on anti-tobacco causes. The rest of it is going to various budgetary programs that the governor and the attorneys general all favor, including flood control, widening the sidewalks, reducing college tuition and a whole variety of programs.
After all, if tobacco is such a horrible thing, why hasn't it been made illegal? And the answer is because the states are raking in a ton of money. Out of every $6 in profits in New York state, the state and city is getting five of that. That makes the government an 83 percent shareholder in an industry that allegedly is killing 400,000 Americans every year.
NEVILLE: You have a lot of people in the audience here shaking their head, agreeing with what you are saying. I have to take a break right now, but I definitely want to hear from those audience members.
And I know I have a caller standing by. I will get to you as well after the break, and you as well, Elena (ph), OK?
All right, TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, Dave in Arizona says: "It's the government's job to regulate smoking, because they pay most of the health-related costs attributed to smoking."
And welcome back, everybody.
We're talking about what higher cigarette taxes really mean to smokers. A new city tax in New York will boost the cost of cigarettes to more than $7 a pack.
And I have Karen in Tennessee who wants to speak out.
Go ahead, Karen.
CALLER: Yes.
My comment was that I think we're being discriminated against because we smoke. And I don't think that is right. What about the people that are addicted to caffeine? You never hear about coffee being raised. And I just don't think it is right what they are doing.
NEVILLE: OK.
I have Paulette from Missouri.
PAULETTE: My whole comment is that it's almost like repairing a rusty bucket. If a majority of that money that is going to come from the taxes on this is not going to be used to help eliminate the problem and help to treat those who have the addiction, then what is the purpose in the tax? It will be a continual cycle. It's not going to fix anything.
CORR: Arthel, may I respond to that?
NEVILLE: Of course you may.
CORR: The Centers for Disease Control has put out some statistics that I think we can rely upon.
And they say that the federal and state governments are spending about $55 billion every year for health care costs associated with smoking. And the federal and state tobacco excise taxes raise about $16 billion every year. That means that federal and state taxpayers are paying the cost of smoking-related disease. Now, that doesn't mean we should turn our backs on smokers. It means we need to help them.
We need to help kids not start. And we need to help adults who are smoking quit. And if we did that, we would bring down the smoking-related health care costs, reduce the need for tobacco excise taxes, and rid this country of the terrible toll that tobacco takes.
NEVILLE: OK, let me get...
LEVEY: I'm afraid... NEVILLE: Go ahead.
LEVEY: I am afraid those statistics are simply not correct.
Every study that has been done that is peer-reviewed in an academic journal has held exactly the opposite. Harvard economists, the Congressional Research Service, the Rand Corporation published in "The Journal of American Medical Association" have all concluded that the social costs of smoking are more than covered by excise taxes, long before the excise taxes had been increased.
The thing you have to remember is, if someone doesn't die from smoking, they will die from something else. So, the real costs is only the difference between what would have been spent for what they would have died for and what they actually spent on the smoking- related diseases.
NEVILLE: OK, we are of time. Bill Corr and Robert Levey, thank you both for joining us today here on TALKBACK LIVE.
And thanks to all of you for watching. We'll be back again tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
